What’s With Movie Covers and Bad Art?

04 Sep

Posted by ericmsteen as Movies

It seems as though the people in charge of the artwork on DVD covers are only interested in the shelf-value of movies. What else would they be interested in? It is reasonable to say that making movies is a money making business and movie-houses should do what they can to make as much money as they can. Most movies that we see nowadays simply plaster a celebrity image on the front cover and call it good. The tactic works, as far as rentals are concerned…if I see an image of Brad Pitt or Uma Thurman, I am likely to pick up the DVD. But in my opinion, it is a disservice to the movie and the actors to not give it a well designed cover and booklet to supplement the DVD.

Sometimes I am surprised to see the original posters for movies because they often have elements of creativity but then when the DVD comes out, it’s back to mediocrity. Check out the difference between the August Rush poster on the left and the DVD cover on the right:

I think the poster, on the left, has movement, wonder, and mystery to it. Those three elements were essential ingredients in the film too. The DVD cover has forfeited all those things and dumbed it down so that we can see the three main actors. If I were at a video store, I would be much more inclined to pick up the DVD if it had the image on the left.

Check out the movie Breach! This is one of the worst! We’ve lost all the suspicion, mystery, and fright. We’ve also lost balance. The DVD cover is hideous and leaves you to rely on your knowledge of who the actors are. It tells you nothing of the story. I bet no one will be interested in this movie 20 years from now because why would they ever want to pick up a DVD that looks like this.

One of the most upsetting poster to DVD changes is the movie Sideways. I think it’s still very well designed in the DVD form, but the poster was just so perfect. The designer must have been so upset when her/his boss told them to stick images of the actors in there. While this one might pull it off with some sense of creativity, I believe it still dumbs down the artwork. The poster is spacious and the image tells you a lot; the DVD cover is quite cramped and busy with the images.

And the old sci fi movies are getting face lifts as well. One of my favorites, Logan’s Run originally had beautiful artwork, much like most old sci fi movies, but as new versions come out, the creativity disappears. The older version even has the actors on the front, but they are used in a way that makes them feel as if they are running from something, which they are. The new one is flat, fragmented, and very ugly.

Here’s the 2005 War of the Worlds. While the poster is actually kind of cheesy, all hope is lost with the DVD:

This phenomenon has happened to most movies. Movie covers are ugly. Just go to your nearest rental store and look. You’ll see little intelligent design and a lot of hasty celebrity cut and paste. Have you ever listened to a cd of a band that put a lot of energy and effort into making their booklet a real piece of art? Have you spent a long time looking at the images, art, or reading the lyrics and doesn’t that give you a sentimental attachment not only to the cd, but to the music itself? I guess a DVD isn’t supposed to be special. Sure, there are “special edditions” but don’t you think that it would be worthwhile to invest a bit more in creativty and less into the mere consumption of icons?

I’d like to end with a smorgasbord of Tom Cruise movies since 2000. These are just the one’s he’s starred in, not the ones with special appearances. His DVD cover history before 2000 is quite similar to these, with a few redemptive exceptions, like Magnolia, which was a story about connections between lots of people, none of whom were the “main” actor.